Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

your favorite AMD CPU for gaming and video editing around $100?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 4, 2013 2:24:39 PM

After reading a zillion threads on custom building computers I realize now that my usage style is very focused.

I only ever do 1 thing at a time, meaning I either play Crysis, or use Handbrake or Vegas, but i never run Photoshop and handbrake together.

My understanding is that because of this, I don't need to worry too much about lots of cores, but rather about clock speed.

Right?

I'm told the AMD FX 8320 is great, but it's too expensive.

Can I go with a Sempron II or is that just not good enough?

Thanks for any pointers.
April 4, 2013 2:32:07 PM

Duke Nucome said:
Avoid Sempron like the plague. Get the AMD FX 6300 it's a great CPU.


what about it?
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 2:33:16 PM

I would take a look at the Trinity or Richland (5800k/6800k) APU's. Just make sure that you can get some fast ram for them. Richland should be out in a few months. they have enhanced piledriver cores (a little better IPC than last generation bulldozer and higher clockspeeds) unless you can hold out for Kaveri around November/December time.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a c 175 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 4, 2013 2:33:55 PM

Agree'd the 6300 is the best cpu for the performance to price ratio.

Closer to $100 a amd phenom II x6 1045t for $95 new off tiger direct. Issue is its a stock clocked 2.7Ghz cpu, would require a aftermarket cooler and overclock to around 3.4ghz to get good use to compare to the higher costing fx cpus. Otherwise stock speed would be the x4 965 BE for $100, but really the fx 6300 is best for its cost
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2013 2:34:50 PM

it's older, like 10 years old older lol, start with the basics, are you upgrading just your cpu, if so what motherboard do you have? Or are you planning on building a computer from the ground up? what's your budget for the rest of it?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2013 2:45:03 PM

Timstertimster said:
Duke Nucome said:
Avoid Sempron like the plague. Get the AMD FX 6300 it's a great CPU.


what about it?

Sempron is a sigle core athlon chip, even the sempron 140 that unlocks into a dual core athlon is not enough. If you have to go cheap buy a athlon x4. You cannot equate i core to one task it does not work that way.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2013 2:50:48 PM

Even though you're doing one thing at a time, programs like handbrake will use all of your cores. As Duke and others have said, the fx-6300 is best if you can afford it. However if you can't get the fx-6300 then the phenom ii x4 965 is a very capable processor.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 4, 2013 4:31:55 PM

You can get a FX6300 for $129.99 online right now.

If you go to pcpartpicker.com and select FX 6300 under CPU it will show you 4-6 places to buy it and how much they sell it for, and whether or not they charge for shipping.

I believe it's on newegg for $129.99 right now though.

They are steering you correctly. The FX6300 is 3/4 of a FX8320 and well worth the money...plus it will have some futureproofing built in as it is a mid-high end chip now, and you can likely delay your next upgrade by a few years going that route. Where as a Phenom II series CPU is a good CPU, but would require upgrade sooner.
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 6:16:25 PM

corbeau said:
Even though you're doing one thing at a time, programs like handbrake will use all of your cores. As Duke and others have said, the fx-6300 is best if you can afford it. However if you can't get the fx-6300 then the phenom ii x4 965 is a very capable processor.


thanks for that info. Am I to understand that any rendering-type activity (photoshop filters, handbrake, video rendering) will utilize multiple cores and thus more cores mean faster processing?

Do cores matter for gaming at all?
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 6:45:21 PM

+1 fx6300. its worth it over the 965. but really you wouldn't see a difference in gaming :) 
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 7:09:49 PM

I said I would recommend it over the 965. In terms of gaming, you're going to be pleased with both cpus either way. I'm not sure why you are bashing the 965! Why would it hold back your gpu?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 4, 2013 7:12:40 PM

More cores are better...

Games that use 4+ cores:

Crysis 3
Far Cry 3
Bioshock Infinite
Tomb Raider
BF3
Metro 2033
Batman Arkham City
ARMA
DayZ
Assassins Creed 3
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2013 8:40:26 PM

The FX6300 is great, however... at stock clock speeds a 965 is honestly about 5%-10% slower in games and games only. Once you start running highly threaded programs (video and photo editing) the FX6300 easily pulls ahead by a good margin.

My 965 was actually slightly faster when clocked at 4,336Mhz than my FX6300 clocked at the same exact speed in a few bench marks.

Example - 3DMark Fire Strike:

965 @ 4,336 Mhz - score - 5873 - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/293460

Fx6300 @ 4,336 Mhz - score - 5847 - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/323062

Now, that being said, the FX6300 really comes into it's own at 4.6+ Ghz if you are interested in overclocking this CPU.

Remeber, as things become more multi-threaded the FX6300 will really start to create some distance between itself and the Phenom 965. It's definately worth the $30 - $40 more than the 965.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2013 10:10:05 PM

Timstertimster said:
corbeau said:
Even though you're doing one thing at a time, programs like handbrake will use all of your cores. As Duke and others have said, the fx-6300 is best if you can afford it. However if you can't get the fx-6300 then the phenom ii x4 965 is a very capable processor.


thanks for that info. Am I to understand that any rendering-type activity (photoshop filters, handbrake, video rendering) will utilize multiple cores and thus more cores mean faster processing?

Do cores matter for gaming at all?


Yes cores matter in rendering big time, and increasingly in gaming. Really going back to around 2008 dual cores were necessary to meet the minimum requirements, but from around 2008-2012 most games were mostly written for 2-3 cores ( on my machine Arkham City uses 3 cores decently, but the other core very little) . Now newer games are beginning to utilize more cores in a more meaningful way. With directx 11 and newer advances we're really at a turning point, games before this year did not really utilize more than 4 cores, but games coming out this year and going forward will use up to 8 threads (that I know of).
m
0
l
April 5, 2013 6:32:02 AM

it seems that there is an ongoing debate about how many cores games utilize. What is the truth? Do games really utilize 4 cores? Would that mean on a quad-core system, the cpu would be at 100% usage?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 6:57:57 AM

Duke Nucome said:
thomann061 said:
I said I would recommend it over the 965. In terms of gaming, you're going to be pleased with both cpus either way. I'm not sure why you are bashing the 965! Why would it hold back your gpu?


I am bashing the 965 from experience cause I just upgraded my GPU on mon and guess what CPU x4 970 OCed is holding back my new GPU investment. I hope an FX 6300 will be enough to make my GPU investment worth it as I would hate to be forced into a whole platform upgrade.


I would have to say you are doing it wrong then. My old 960T @ 4.25Ghz played nice with 2X 6950's and that's just a wee bit more firepower than your 7850...

To the OP, like everyone has said if you have the cash go with the 6300. If not the 965 is still a plenty capable chip


m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 11:10:22 AM

Duke Nucome said:
cmi86 said:
Duke Nucome said:
10612624,0,1292615 said:
I said I would recommend it over the 965. In terms of gaming, you're going to be pleased with both cpus either way. I'm not sure why you are bashing the 965! Why would it hold back your gpu?
said:


I am bashing the 965 from experience cause I just upgraded my GPU on mon and guess what CPU x4 970 OCed is holding back my new GPU investment. I hope an FX 6300 will be enough to make my GPU investment worth it as I would hate to be forced into a whole platform upgrade.[/quote

I would have to say you are doing it wrong then. My old 960T @ 4.25Ghz played nice with 2X 6950's and that's just a wee bit more firepower than your 7850...

Guess you didn't play GW2, Fable III, Skyrim, WoW, Rift, ... and that's not to mention the intermittent frame rate spikes/drops due to the CPU even when the game engine is not CPU dependent. On Intel you don't get frame rate spikes/drops and bottlenecking. Also yes the 960T was holding back the potential of 6950 in CF big time.
To the OP, like everyone has said if you have the cash go with the 6300. If not the 965 is still a plenty capable chip


said:


No i played whatever I wanted whenever I wanted and was never met with under 60 FPS EVER on ANYTHING at ANY TIME on ANY settings. Who cares what it is ? if it games hard and gets the job done seriously man who cares ? You sling around the word fanboy but its obvious you are the biggest intel humper in here.

said:


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 11:36:05 AM

Duke Nucome said:

Guess you didn't play GW2, Fable III, Skyrim, WoW, Rift, ... and that's not to mention the intermittent frame rate spikes/drops due to the CPU even when the game engine is not CPU dependent. On Intel you don't get frame rate spikes/drops and bottlenecking. Also yes the 960T was holding back the potential of 6950 in CF big time.
To the OP, like everyone has said if you have the cash go with the 6300. If not the 965 is still a plenty capable chip


Those aren't exactly from this year. Like I said, 2012 and before, most titles weren't well threaded (but Dirt3 is and others are), and 2013 forward, more threads are being utilized.





m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 6:53:04 PM

Duke Nucome said:
thomann061 said:
I said I would recommend it over the 965. In terms of gaming, you're going to be pleased with both cpus either way. I'm not sure why you are bashing the 965! Why would it hold back your gpu?


I am bashing the 965 from experience cause I just upgraded my GPU on mon and guess what CPU x4 970 OCed is holding back my new GPU investment. I hope an FX 6300 will be enough to make my GPU investment worth it as I would hate to be forced into a whole platform upgrade.


How do you know that your 970 is bottlenecking in cpu bound games ??? What are we talking about FPS wise 6-9 fps ? Is it worth upgrading for that kind of increase ?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 5, 2013 9:29:28 PM

Bioshock Infinite was designed around AMD hardware, as was Tomb Raider, the dev tools they used were all AMD. Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 will run on 6+ cores if they have them available. Metro 2033 will use 4+ Cores and BF3 will use 4+ as well.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2013 9:57:14 PM

Duke Nucome said:
tourist said:
Duke Nucome said:
thomann061 said:
I said I would recommend it over the 965. In terms of gaming, you're going to be pleased with both cpus either way. I'm not sure why you are bashing the 965! Why would it hold back your gpu?


I am bashing the 965 from experience cause I just upgraded my GPU on mon and guess what CPU x4 970 OCed is holding back my new GPU investment. I hope an FX 6300 will be enough to make my GPU investment worth it as I would hate to be forced into a whole platform upgrade.


How do you know that your 970 is bottlenecking in cpu bound games ??? What are we talking about FPS wise 6-9 fps ? Is it worth upgrading for that kind of increase ?


Nope we are talking 30+ fps deficits. Plus there's always the "Intel Compilers" http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/david-manners-se...


Toms has them very close not 30fps difference.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

m
0
l
April 8, 2013 11:42:35 AM

cmi86 said:

To the OP, like everyone has said if you have the cash go with the 6300. If not the 965 is still a plenty capable chip


How's it compare with the 1045? I see the 1045 as a nice bundle with a MoBo for 140.- and it looks attractive, but I'm trying to better understand why many at TH forums are preferring the 965. All I understand is that it's clock sped is higher.

http://products.amd.com/en-US/DesktopCPUSideBySide.aspx...

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2013 12:00:26 PM

Timstertimster said:
cmi86 said:

To the OP, like everyone has said if you have the cash go with the 6300. If not the 965 is still a plenty capable chip


How's it compare with the 1045? I see the 1045 as a nice bundle with a MoBo for 140.- and it looks attractive, but I'm trying to better understand why many at TH forums are preferring the 965. All I understand is that it's clock sped is higher.

http://products.amd.com/en-US/DesktopCPUSideBySide.aspx...



The 965 is preferred over the 1045 because most games and applications can use up to 4 cores, some more, most less. When an application is using 4 or less cores, the 965 will be significantly faster than the 1045 due to clock speed, as the chip architecture is the same. If you were running something that could use those extra cores then there might be a slight advantage over the 965.

99% of the time the 965 will be faster for your average gamer under normal usage.
m
0
l
April 8, 2013 12:12:59 PM

ish416 said:


99% of the time the 965 will be faster for your average gamer under normal usage.


THis forum talks a lot about gaming rigs, but for me it's not just gaming - I'm going to be video rendering and Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Bridge CS6 work.

Someone said that AMD "cores" are really modules and not true cores... I'm still trying to make sense of that.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2013 12:13:41 PM

Unless you plan to OC, then the 1045 is worth it.
m
0
l
April 8, 2013 12:15:24 PM

.....................................................
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2013 12:20:48 PM

Read the "Intel vs. AMD Why?" thread and the thread titled "Is the FX 8350 good for gaming"...nice long conversations about the myths being spread about by pro intel people. You can find the appropriate benchmarks etc. in there to show reality. The FX8350 is 90-95% of the i7-3770k for 50% of the money. The only thing intel wins at regularly are single threaded applications, and those will soon be going the way of the dodo and dinosaur.

AMD is a fine choice for gaming, especially if you like heavily threaded games like Crysis 3, etc.

For video rendering etc, the FX6300 or FX8320 are the better choices among mid-range chips out there. They are monsters at chewing those types of tasks up and they are both more than adequate for gaming.
m
0
l
April 8, 2013 12:31:52 PM

8350rocks said:

For video rendering etc, the FX6300 or FX8320 are the better choices among mid-range chips out there. They are monsters at chewing those types of tasks up and they are both more than adequate for gaming.


I'm looking at a 1045T with a Gigabyte 78LMT-USB3 MoBo

I can also get the same MoBo with a 965 for the same money. if I spring for the FX-6300 it will be $40.- more total, and I'm not sure if it's worth it. Are my standard vanilla DVD's going to rip 50% faster with an FX-6300? Is my Adobe Bridge going to extract thumbnails 40% faster? Is a 965 or 1045T going to choke on Skyrim in Ultra Settings while I'm doing a screen recording of the gameplay?

I'm not too keen on OC'ing - too much hassle and risk IMHO.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2013 12:36:53 PM

The FX6300 is worth $40 more if you're rendering etc. Ripping DVDs and all that is where the newer FX series REALLY shines. The FX6300 will run a race with i5s on the John the Ripper benchmark...so you'd really be getting a bit more going to the FX6300. Plus, the FX6300 will bench comparably or better on your games...AND run your background tasks faster.

As for OC'ing...you don't even have to adjust voltage, you can just change the clock multiplier in BIOS up a few notches and the chip will still run fine...I think it comes stock clock 3.5 GHz, you could bump it up to 3.8/3.9 GHz without adjusting anything but the multiplier in BIOS and you wouldn't hurt anything.
m
0
l
April 8, 2013 4:39:05 PM

8350rocks said:
The FX6300 is worth $40 more if you're rendering etc. Ripping DVDs and all that is where the newer FX series REALLY shines. The FX6300 will run a race with i5s on the John the Ripper benchmark...so you'd really be getting a bit more going to the FX6300. Plus, the FX6300 will bench comparably or better on your games...AND run your background tasks faster.


I'm looking at a 6100 for 20.- less

I think that's almost exactly the same processor. Slight difference in speed is al lI can tell.
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUSideBySide.aspx...
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2013 4:44:02 PM

No, not same processor, same hardware, the instruction set on the FX6300 and architecture has been revised to improve performance, and the gain is about a 15% greater efficiency. It's worth the $20...I can assure you, if you look at benchmarks the FX6100 performed poorly, as did much of the 1st gen Bulldozer architecture, where as the FX6300 is a great performer and on par with i5's in alot of things, especially overclocked, then it really begins to shine.
Share
April 8, 2013 4:48:10 PM

8350rocks said:
... especially overclocked, then it really begins to shine.


Thanks.

What's considered a "safe OC speed on this thing? you made it sound rather simple above. I recall the old days where OC'ing could fry the CPU ather easily.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2013 4:52:54 PM

with a hyper 212 EVO cooling fan, you should be able to go to 3.8-3.9 without changing anything but the clock multiplier. If you want to tweak voltages and such you can...and get more performance that way.

The only other thing I recommend is making sure you have enough cfm air flow in your case, you'll want to exhaust the extra heat generated. But going from 3.5 to 3.8 you likely won't notice any substantial difference in core temps. If you push it further you will start to see it, but you can run it all day long at 3.8-3.9 GHz and not have any troubles.

I would start by changing the clock multiplier in your BIOS, and set it to 19.5 that is 3.9 GHz, if it's stable after running something like IBT or prime95 then you're good. If it's not stable, back off the multiplier to 19 for 3.8 GHz and you should be fine there without adjusting voltages.

That's a modest OC, you can get more aggressive later if you want as the Hyper 212 EVO will really allow you to push it more than that, it's a great cooling system.

Please share some solution love to one of us :) 
m
0
l
April 8, 2013 5:20:26 PM

8350rocks said:


Please share some solution love to one of us :) 


oh.

im a noob.
m
0
l
!